For the record, I started this reasoning by stating, "I am not trying to convince anyone who believes in people's inability to grasp absolute truths to change their view in any way. They are entitled to their views. I am simply putting on record MY disagreement with that line of reasoning."

I maintain that position because there is no easy way to PROVE some absolute truths unless people share similar experiences. So do not take my responses as an attempt to labour these points. I am just sharing more views on the topic.
___________

You said: "Anyway, all of that was be means of trying to point out that even seemingly incontrovertable facts may be, well, un-facts as it turns out."

* The definition/ meaning of a fact is still clear. The fact is, scientists often label their research as facts then later realize they are wrong as a result of their errors. Once they are convinced they are wrong the subject is no longer considered a fact. This is no different to what people think is the truth in any other sense. People swear and kill over misinformation that they believe is the truth. Acting on misinformation does not alter the actual truth.

Absolute truths are usually comprised of bits of truths (facts) that act as building blocks to bigger ideas and truths. Bits of truths (facts) can also be assembled to distort and mislead. Because of the multilayered and very dynamic nature of absolute truths that addresses a wide range of questions and interpretations, they are best grasped through direct experiences and reasonings, and not by some edict. Even if one gets an edict that is absolutely true it still has to be reasoned and experienced to grasp the fullness of it. As one arrives at the fullness of truth, they know if for themselves.

There is also a notion that an absolute truth would be easily understood by all. But that is not really true. People are at different levels of sensibilities, experiences and awareness allowing a variety of perspectives, so not all would understand the same way. Since an absolute truth is usually conveyed through experience and language, then those who lack the experience do not get it. People interpret words differently (than what is being communicated), so information could be understood differently, thus altering the intended meaning in the mind of the listener. Also, an absolute truth can be comprised of many facts and this means the people who are trying to grasp that absolute truth have to be sufficiently informed about the many facts. They may not even agree on the facts. That does not mean the absolute truth cannot be accurately conveyed.

You said "Overall transcendant truth, of which the idea of univesal origin is a component that I too would agree with is also a bit problematic. As far as my understanding extends it is, in its overall sense, inexpressable. And often has to compete with the many 'expressed' and dogmatic version of truth that exist."

* I am using the word 'transcendent' defined as "transcending normal or physical human experience."

The only major obstacle with sharing 'transcendent' truths is they have to be experienced and reasoned to grasp. That is the reason I see no need to extensively debate such truths. I put up a challenge in a previous post on this board, resulting in only one person taking the challenge seriously. There is no other way to prove a 'transcendent' truth to another who does not want to experience that truth that "transcends normal or physical human experience."

People often receive information initially and just do not get it, and then many years later, after more experiences, they finally discover the meaning. In other words, all people are not at the same sensibilities, resulting in reaching certain understanding at different times after getting the necessary experiences. If all people believe the world is flat, the world would still be round. Truth is not a democracy.